A Legal Analysis Into Poor Validity Testing Within Neuropsychological Assessments – Malingerers Or Misunderstood

Matt Sutton and Daniel Garas wrote a paper examining how courts and tribunals treat poor validity scores in brain injury cases. They show that failed testing does not necessarily mean malingering, citing Kwok v Abecassis and LAT decisions where collateral evidence and credibility outweighed invalid scores. The paper urges lawyers to use medical records, witness observations, and baseline comparisons to challenge low scores, highlighting that context and supporting evidence are critical in assessing neuropsychological results.

Matt also made a presentation with the article on September 16th, 2025 at LSO’s 8th Motor Vehicle Litigation Summit.